Pets MEGA Cats VS Dogs - POLL!

[Johnny1]

Rogue Robot, I understand that you are a dog lover, but my point is why love this dog when there are so many in need of saving when this dog is dangerous? I don't believe that dogs are disposable, and although I don't have the same relationship with dogs as you do, I am still a dog lover. I'm trying to balance the interests of children and dogs. I don't think it's wrong to euthanize this dog at all. I think it's humane in both the world of humans and the world of dogs.

pennywise, your argument re why not kill every dog in the world is a reductio ad absurdum. The vast majority of dogs will never in their lives hurt a human. This dog has demonstrated that it can attack a child, suddenly and unpredictably. There are far more dogs than good homes. Rather than give this dog to a good home, why not give the good home to a dog who is most likely in the safe-for-people category, rather than to one in the tiny fraction that's dangerous?

 

[aanallein]

shouldn't have left a baby near a dog. you never know when a baby will do something to provoke attack. sure you can blame the dog but its a dog and if a baby comes up and pokes it in the eye or yanks on its whiskers it might fight back. there's no telling what happened here but i wouldn't blame the dog. just be more aware of what your baby is doing and get some gates in place to separate the baby and dog at all times.

i understand people's sentiment that "a dog that attacks a child should be put down" but this isn't a clear cut case of a vicious dog attacking without provocation. If a pitbull or some other aggressive dog attacks a child or person unprovoked obviously that's a problem. in this case you have an unsupervised infant that got attacked - there's no telling what happened in this situation and THAT is the problem here. not what the dog did. the fact the situation was possible is where i see the major concern.

 

[pennywise]

pennywise, your argument re why not kill every dog in the world is a reductio ad absurdum. The vast majority of dogs will never in their lives hurt a human. This dog has demonstrated that it can attack a child, suddenly and unpredictably. There are far more dogs than good homes. Rather than give this dog to a good home, why not give the good home to a dog who is most likely in the safe-for-people category, rather than to one in the tiny fraction that's dangerous?

Indeed it is a reductio argument. Knowing that, shouldn't you know that it's used to show how absurd the claim is by carrying it to it's logical conclusion? This incident alone doesn't make the dog intrinsically more dangerous than other dogs. Remember, before this it was the embodiment of a kind, family friendly dog. It's even a breed known for its compatibility with children. All those other "good dogs" out there have the same capacity for violence that this dog does, because all dogs have that capacity. I keep saying this...dogs, by their very nature, by their evolution and place in the biological world, are made to attack and kill other creatures. Whether it's to feed themselves, or defend themselves or their offspring, they are equipped with teeth, claws, and instincts to use them. It only takes the right combination of circumstances to bring it out. As such, there isn't anything more dangerous about this dog than there would be about any dog, especially given it's previous temperament and behavior. If you brought a different dog into the house to replace it, it would be foolish to put the child in a situation where the same thing could happen, so what's the difference if it's the same dog in the house that has always been there, or a new dog...one that could turn out to be even more dangerous.

At least with this dog, despite the one incident, you know that it's generally very friendly. You couldn't say that with another dog that you know less about. Further, the fact that this dog has been generally known to be friendly and safe is further reason to believe that there was something about the incident that was unusual, whether there was some unusual provocation to which a less friendly animal would have responded even more violently toward at an even earlier time, or some change in the dog's health or environment that would have led another, less friendly animal to become even more aggressive.

The point is that you can't say from this one incident that this dog is any worse than any other dog --in fact, you can make the case that it might have even reacted less violently than another would have-- and replacing it with a different animal, or even going so far as to kill it, would be making a baseless decision that is bred from emotional reaction rather than consideration of the facts.

I know it's hard not to react with your emotions when there are kids involved, especially when you have kids yourself, but the most accurate thing you can draw from this is that it's probably not safe to put your kids in that situation with any dog. It just doesn't follow that there is something about this particular dog that replacing it with another dog or killing it would solve.

At best, it might satiate your feelings of anger and apprehension, but I don't think that it's fair to kill the dog over your feelings, or put it in a situation where it's probably going to be killed.

 

[LoveAlways]

SO..

The vet wont euthanize him........that seems to be a moot point now am I correct?

The ASPCA said it is very unlikely that he will get adopted.....is this also a moot point in your mind alicat?

So what is the new plan of action? Take him to the vet? Cesear Milan? Try handling it on your own? Please keep us updated!!

 

[Johnny1]

I know it's hard not to react with your emotions when there are kids involved, especially when you have kids yourself, but the most accurate thing you can draw from this is that it's probably not safe to put your kids in that situation with any dog. It just doesn't follow that there is something about this particular dog that replacing it with another dog or killing it would solve.

Believe it or not, other than attempting to empathize with alicat72, I have not been either angry or apprehensive (or any other strong emotion) in this discussion. My posts have simply reflected my philosophical convictions, with stronger language used for stronger convictions.

On the one hand, I agree with you that every dog has the capability to attack. And that every dog must be supervised around small children.

On the other hand, I can't help but think that there are dogs who have a propensity to attack, whether it's by nature, nurture, or illness, and other dogs who do not have a propensity to attack. Can any dog attack? Yes. Do most dogs attack? No.

So, for me:

Children > dog.
Dog that hasn't attacked > dog that has.

To me a dog is a member of the family, and I know that if this happened in my family, I'd be heartbroken. But my decision on what to do would have nothing to do with emotion, it would be having to do what's right for everyone regardless of my emotions.

 

[pennywise]

whether it's a dog that hasn't attacked or a dog that has attacked, it would still be stupid to let either one of them have the opportunity. So if neither have the opportunity, then whether they have attacked before becomes irrelevant, because neither one will be able to attack at all, and

dog that hasn't attacked = dog that has attacked

so keep the same dog.

Moreover, if you are going to get rid of the dog that has attacked, wouldn't it be safer to not replace it with another dog that still could attack? Why would you even get another dog in the first place?

Further, just because the other dog hasn't yet attacked, that's not guarantee , (hell that doesn't even increase the chances) that its a dog that wouldn't attack, given the same circumstances. In fact, it could actually be a dog that is more likely to attack, given the same circumstances, or even more likely to attack given even more benign circumstances...perhaps even attack more viciously. You don't know anything about this theoretical dog other than it hasn't attacked yet. Which doesn't mean very much. Consider: the dog that did attack had been a dog that hadn't attacked (in fact was a dog that seemed very unlikely to attack), but then it did. It just goes to show you that a dog not having ever attacked before does nothing to ensure that it won't in the future.

I could go on and on with this. The point is that if you are going to keep any dog in the house, it doesn't matter whether it's the one you have or a different one, because you aren't going to let them get near your kid like that again, and because all dogs are unpredictable, just like you learned with your last dog (who had never attacked before). Getting a different dog isn't going to make it any better. Keeping dogs away from your kid is. Whether you decide to do that by simply keeping them apart within the house or just eliminating any dogs from the house altogether is up to you, but there isn't any reason to end the life of your current dog either directly or indirectly.

it would be having to do what's right for everyone regardless of my emotions.

...everyone except the dog.

 

[Rogue Robot]

Rogue Robot, I understand that you are a dog lover, but my point is why love this dog

it's hard to stop loving a dog regardless of what has happened. if you've had invested interest in anything, not matter what it is, when times get tough you shouldn't always give up. right?

when there are so many in need of saving when this dog is dangerous? I don't believe that dogs are disposable, and although I don't have the same relationship with dogs as you do, I am still a dog lover.

i totally understand that, but why get rid of this one to get another, as pennywise said, that could potentially do the same thing. we don't really know if the baby pulled on the dog or did something to the dog.

hell, my basset rescue went lashing out at a 3 year old at the vet clinic and damn near bit him all because he pulled on her ears, which at the time were extremely infected from allergy and yeast problems that will never go away with her. i'm not trying to be rude as i'm trying to be logical with you, but should i get rid of her to? a lot of behavioral issues can be dealt with by training and obedience, seriously. i don't think the dog should go away or be put down because of this one incident. if it were a persistent problem, then yeah, i would say take it further than training.

children also need to learn to respect dogs or any animal, for that matter.

 

[Johnny1]

A dog that never has attacked is no guarantee that a future attack will not happen, but practically-speaking there is no way to be able to provide 100% supervision if it's a "family dog." So if I'm correct that only a small fraction of dogs will attack, I'd rather stake my bet on a dog that's loving and gentle and has never attacked than a dog that's loving and gentle but has attacked. I don't think it's the circumstances that cause the attack, I think it's the individual dog. So one that has a clean record is a better bet. I agree that it's not 100%, and that it's unknowable - and could even attack more viciously, like you say. But playing the odds, I would no longer allow the dog that's attacked to be around small children.

I think that if you identify with the dog, it will be extremely difficult to know whether you're making the right decision.

 

[vibr8tor]

children also need to learn to respect dogs or any animal, for that matter.

i agree, but in all fairness, she did post that the dog was not touched. and if nothing is missing from the original post, it *was* a supervised situation. keeping the dog guarantees one thing, as far as i'm concerned: you have a dog with a proven history of unprovoked attacks.

 

[Johnny1]

it's hard to stop loving a dog regardless of what has happened. if you've had invested interest in anything, not matter what it is, when times get tough you shouldn't always give up. right?

RR, I don't mean the owner will stop loving the dog. I mean dog lovers who have never met this dog loving this dog.

hell, my basset rescue went lashing out at a 3 year old at the vet clinic and damn near bit him all because he pulled on her ears, which at the time were extremely infected from allergy and yeast problems that will never go away with her. i'm not trying to be rude as i'm trying to be logical with you, but should i get rid of her to? a lot of behavioral issues can be dealt with by training and obedience, seriously. i don't think the dog should go away or be put down because of this one incident. if it were a persistent problem, then yeah, i would say take it further than training.

children also need to learn to respect dogs or any animal, for that matter.

No, I don't think you should get rid of her. But that's a very different situation than a family dog grabbing an 8 month old baby by the head and thrashing it on the living room rug. She could have died. If this dog lived on a farm or ranch and was a working dog, or lived in a household with no children, this issue would not be as dire. But children have friends, children love dogs, children are curious, and children don't listen. I don't believe this dog can be a "family dog" unless it's not around small children any longer. I don't trust this dog.

 

[pennywise]

If you get another dog that has never attacked and put the kid in the same position, then you haven't changed anything in terms of risk. You're putting your kid in the same position and at the same risk that led to this incident in the first place. You aren't reducing the risk at all. It doesn't solve anything. Why would you get a new dog just to put your kid at the same risk that it was at before?

The only way to make sure this doesn't happen again is to keep the child and the dog separate; and if you're doing that it doesn't matter if you keep the same dog or replace it with a gerbil or with a man eating tiger, because there won't be any contact that could lead to an attack. And in that case, you might as well keep the same dog.

I don't think it's unrealistic to provide 100% supervision. It's not like you have to be there 24/7 physically standing between the dog and the kid. You just keep the dog and the kid in different areas of the house -- just like she's doing now. All it takes is a couple of cheap gates that you should probably have in the house anyway to keep the kid away from the other dangerous things like the stairs and the stove and the kitchen knives. It will keep the kid and dog separate 100% of the time and make sure that there is never the chance for another attack. I think that's a lot safer than rolling the dice on the off chance that the different dog that you get with a "clean record" is going to be any safer.

I don't trust this dog.

I don't see where you would think you could trust any dog, even with the minimal reassurance you might get from it having never attacked before.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Johnny1
This dog is precious to his owner. He's not precious to anyone else! People, stop trying to save this dog for the dog's sake. Only think of alicat72, and more importantly, her child, and just as importantly, other children who will come into contact with this dog.

People here are probably worrying about this dog while munching on a hamburger.

Quantifying an animal's value solely on what it means to its owner shows a disrespect for all sentient life. Perhaps we are the dominant species, but that doesn't make a dog's life meaningless without human context.

The dog is a living, breathing mammal, who eats, breathes, shits and dies just like the rest of us. If you want to romanticize the value of human life, I'll indulge you.. but that's no reason to marginalize the life of another living creature independently of what that creature has done.

 

[alicat72]

shouldn't have left a baby near a dog. you never know when a baby will do something to provoke attack. sure you can blame the dog but its a dog and if a baby comes up and pokes it in the eye or yanks on its whiskers it might fight back. there's no telling what happened here but i wouldn't blame the dog. just be more aware of what your baby is doing and get some gates in place to separate the baby and dog at all times.

i understand people's sentiment that "a dog that attacks a child should be put down" but this isn't a clear cut case of a vicious dog attacking without provocation. If a pitbull or some other aggressive dog attacks a child or person unprovoked obviously that's a problem. in this case you have an unsupervised infant that got attacked - there's no telling what happened in this situation and THAT is the problem here. not what the dog did. the fact the situation was possible is where i see the major concern.

i did not leave her with the dog. i was right there not even 2 feet away. she did not touch him at all.

it really pisses me off that you post without reading thoroughly what actually happened.

i asked for opinions not judgements.

 

[alicat72]

just so you all will stop arguing whether he should be put down.....

i posted this earlier and i will reiterate....

the laws in this state do not allow a dog to be put down for a single incident. the law states he must be evaluated by a behaviourist in order to decide whether he should be put down.

i have an appt monday to have him evaluated.

 

[MynameisnotDeja]

wow, you are surprised? are you serious? i think it is criminally negligent to keep the dog.
and as a lover of animals, and a mommy to a toy poodle that i home cooked for for a year before resorting to a healthy organic mix due to being unsure that i was fulfilling the nutrients needed for a healthy diet.....she is my baby too. but i find it laughable that you would compare the two.

i could put the dog down myself if she ever harmed my children.

You just have to understand, that to some of us (ME), there is no difference. WHat you just said to me would be like saying, I would murder my son if he ever harmed my daughter. Would you do that?

I'm not saying you're wrong in your opinions, but just understand that to some people there is no difference between animals and people.

I hope this can be respected, thats all.

 

[alicat72]

alicat, BL really is a great resource for advice. I for one appreciate your candor and the fact that you brought this up in a mature and dignified way. I've noticed that parenting and child safety is just one of those facets of humanity that no one is lukewarm or neutral about.

I'm really shocked that the ASPCA didn't have better suggestions for you than that, but I guess it's because their mission is to keep animals out of shelters.

Although Fausty isn't around too much these days, I think if you were to drop him a PM he may have some suggestions for you. The dog whisperer guy seems worth looking into as well.

I know this is not an easy decision for you. Is your daughter home yet?

mariposa- she is home!!

she is doing really well. still playing and trying to stand up. playing a lot. it's amazing how resilient she is.....this whole situation was so stressful, but she received excellent care at the children's hospital. i couldn't have asked for better care for her...

i appreciate your suggestions....i will def contact fausty asap. right now, i have just returned from work and am just exhausted.

 

[pennywise]

I'm not sure if it was recommended that you see if fausty will take your dog, but if so I would appreciate if you pm me so I can ask you something.

 

[poopie]

alicat- so sorry to hear what happened, and i'm glad your baby will be home soon.

i'm not going to argue with anything the other posters said, but agree with what a few have said-

i believe you should spend some time trying to find an animal behaviorist. that is, after you take your pup to the vet.

also, if at all possible, do you have anyone that can hold on to your dog when your daughter comes home? i don;t think you should endure anymore stress if the two are under the same roof.

do please keep us updated!

 

[alicat72]

I'm not sure if it was recommended that you see if fausty will take your dog, but if so I would appreciate if you pm me so I can ask you something.

it was not recommended that he would be able to take harry. just that he may have some suggestions or ideas....

i will pm anyways...

 

[alicat72]

alicat- so sorry to hear what happened, and i'm glad your baby will be home soon.

i'm not going to argue with anything the other posters said, but agree with what a few have said-

i believe you should spend some time trying to find an animal behaviorist. that is, after you take your pup to the vet.

also, if at all possible, do you have anyone that can hold on to your dog when your daughter comes home? i don;t think you should endure anymore stress if the two are under the same roof.

do please keep us updated!

thanks so much poopie.....

harry's vet is a behaviorist.....he will see her on monday.....

amelie is home. i have kept them completely separate and i am feeding harry outside. he is still an indoor dog, but never allowed anywhere near her. luckily, my house is fairly large and both baby and dog have plenty of room even with being separated....

i will certainly keep you all updated....